Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gemini is Solutionism

xn--gckvb8fzb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 227 posts

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#41

Post by lvass »

wmf wrote: post #30
adamrezich wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s more than solutionism, it’s elitism. > elitism (n.) the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society. where does this idea come from? why can't people make their own spaces in their own corners of the Internet without being considered "elitist?" is HN "elitist"? 4chan? Usenet? ZeroNet?

Text-only content is elitist ever since the masses started expecting everything to be video or at least have some stock images.

Healthy foods are elitist ever since the masses started expecting everything to be sugary, so let's not eat healthy.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#42

Post by viraptor »

Permit wrote: post #34
cr__ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Facebook tracks your grandma's internet activities and manipulates her emotional state for profit.

> manipulates her emotional state for profit. Can you share more on this? I've heard they conducted large-scale studies of emotional state[1], but I never heard about a link to profit before. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788

It's not that they have a plan to abuse people for money. It's just that being opposite of boring gives them profit. Outrage brings engagement. Engagement brings time on the platform and ad clicks.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#43

Post by dopidopHN »

elteto wrote: post #7

I wondered the same thing... why invent a whole new thing? Making a web browser capable of displaying the Internet circa 1999 is not trivial but it is far, far, far easier than building a modern one. Let's keep it simple: HTTP 1.1, HTML, CSS 1 (maybe), _no_ JS.

The spec of Gemini state that a Gemini web client should be writable as a weekend project for a experienced dev.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#44

Post by yongjik »

throwawayboise wrote: post #40
dvt wrote: post #28

> The modern web sucks I think that this premise is wrong. The modern web does not suck. FB is usable by my grandma (at 89 she posts semi-regularly!), but there's no way she could understand how to set up an IRC client, how to telnet into servers, or how to write markdown. Of course, there's a lot of bad and a lot of baggage that comes with companies like Facebook and Google, but it's important to keep some perspecti…

Let's be honest, 99% of what your grandma has to tell you could be put in an email with no intermediating parties. The web is totally unnecessary for that.

"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#45

Post by Permit »

throwawayboise wrote: post #38
Permit wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> manipulates her emotional state for profit. Can you share more on this? I've heard they conducted large-scale studies of emotional state[1], but I never heard about a link to profit before. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788

They manipulate for engagement, more time on site, to show more ads.

If that is the extent of this line of reasoning then I guess I am in agreement with dvt. That doesn't seem "bad" to me in the least. I thought cr__ was sharing new information regarding the often criticized study I linked above.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#46

Post by Jtsummers »

allanrbo wrote: post #29

If it was built on HTTP, there's a risk of a slippery slope type situation.

It's not prevented by being its own protocol, only delayed. HTTP was pretty simple at the start, then it got popular and more features got added to satisfy more users. There is no law of nature or humans which prevents Gemini from being hijacked by others later if it becomes popular enough. And if it stays niche, then the current (developer-heavy) community can keep it as simple as they want.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#47

Post by dopidopHN »

throwawayboise wrote: post #5
sergiotapia wrote: post #2

Nah - Gemini FORCES people to use a very strict small surface area. Building on top of existing tech you would need to trust people to do it right, and that ain't something you trust.

Yep there would always be the temptation to say "well I need just one cookie" or "well I need just this bit of javascript" Gemini doesn't give you those options.

It’s also make the protocol considerably easier. I read it in two small settings. It’s surprisingly digest and make you want to start implementing a server or a client for it.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#48

Post by daveevad »

latch wrote: post #10
daveevad wrote: post #4

Super pedantic but you don't need to send the Host header either to get a response. I use the telnet trick often as debug step number one.

OP is correct. HTTP/1.1 requires the Host header (1). The client must send it, and the server must reject requests without it. Some implementations simply don't follow the standard. For example, you can test this on twitter.com, which appears to be correctly following the specification. (1) https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7230#section-5.4

My apologies I was being way too pedantic. You're obviously right about the standard and that some implementations do not follow the standard. I'll even admit complete defeat since I must have skipped over this part, "this server accepts." I was really just objecting to the phrasing of "bare minimum" largely because I'd encountered implementations that do not match specification. But also, the part, "for me to request the website from it" does not quite match the language of the rfc. Therefore, my argument has been reduced to "screaming into the void" is a way to request the website from a server.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#49

Post by barrikad »

There's something to be said about limits. Interesting things happen when you set limitations. The Oulipo group, made up of writers like Perec and Calvino, would intentionally set limits in order to spur creativity. What's the harm in having a web protocol like Gemini attempting to do the same thing? The modern web is bloated, captured, no longer uncharted land waiting to be explored. Why not refuse and set off into the waters of Gemini? What do you have to lose?

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#50

Post by square_usual »

I agree with the author, but from a different direction. The Gemini community has this ethos that stripping away all the styling etc. makes the internet about "content" again. Setting aside for the moment that the definition that content = text is unnecessarily reductive (and insulting to other forms of content - is a beautiful animation not content? is an interactive map of a country showing how covid is affecting it not content?), in my experience - people who care deeply about content are doing everything except bikeshedding about internet protocols.

The people whose content I most respect are writing into a blogger setup that hasn't changed for decades, or into Wordpress's editor that feels like it actively fights you when you want to write. They like making it look like they want it to, and they like having analytics or getting paid for their content with ads or subscriptions. And on the other hand, barring one notable exception I haven't found anybody in the gemini space whose content I found interesting in itself. (Of course, that's just personal opinion - you might find many more people in the gemini space interesting.) And the moment I realized that a significant portion of the content on the gemini space was about implementing a gemini reader, it hit me that it was pure solutionism. Gemini is a protocol for techies who want to bikeshed about tech!

(I could also go on about how the idea that stripping content of styles or """fluff""" is the only way for readers to get it on their own terms. I use stylus to override the font on every website I visit - it didn't require reinventing the wheel for that!)

Post reply on HN